FSX-MS Some Payware Advice, Please

[theCessnaguy 0]

Hello:

 

Over the past couple years I have acquired a couple payware planes; Lionheart's Learjet, Razbam's Metroliner, and QW's Arvojet and 757 all have earned permanent spots in my hangar. Now, however, it is time to get a real, uber realistic plane that will keep me occupied on the weekend when I have a lot of time.

 

I have narrowed it down to 3 choices (alas, PMDG will take too great of a toll on my meager system so I cannot do anything but gaze longingly):

 

Majestic's Dash Q400: Looks awesome, good systems depth and is the leader of the pack in my mind.

 

Aerosoft's A320/321: this also looks great, and comes with all the goodies like Fs2Crew, a weather radar, etc, and I could use it for my VA (Virtual Northwest Airlines). However, I have heard of bugs in the past, and I am not sure of the frame rate hit.

 

Leonardo's Maddog MD-82: A dark horse, I know it has unrivaled systems depth, but it is an FS9 plane, and the graphics might not be up to snuff. Again, though, I could use it for the VA, and it is cheap(er).

 

 

All of these I see on a regular basis by my hometown airport, KBUF, so I would like to get on of em. Can only be one, though, as the budget office will not allow for anything greater. What do you guys think?

[regis9 4,012]

I have the q400 and airbus, both are great. The airbus is easier to fly, the q400 is probably the most difficult aircraft I own in terms of hand flying (I understand that the real q400 is quite a beast to handle, they don't call it the crash 8 for nothing!)

 

Probably not much help, but it comes down to what you prefer. Neither are hanger queens for me (most of the aircraft you mentioned as hanger queens are also hanger queens for me).

[spesimen 135]

if you're concerned about performance the q400 is probably a wise choice.. it gets the best framerates by far of any of the complex aircraft i've tried, and it's a super fun flyer too.

 

dont be intimidated by the 'hard to fly' reputation, it does take a little getting used to if you are coming from fully automated vnav aircrafts maybe, but just watch your throttle and vspeeds and she's pretty straightforward to use. the airline2sim vids also are an excellent intro to flying it properly..

enjoy!

cheers

-andy crosby

[cmpbellsjc 2,960]

How, however, it is time to get a real, uber realistic plane that will keep me occupied on the weekend when I have a lot of time.

 

I have narrowed it down to 3 choices (alas, PMDG will take too great of a toll on my meager system so I cannot do anything but gaze longingly):

 

Majestic's Dash Q400: Looks awesome, good systems depth and is the leader of the pack in my mind.

 

Don't be fooled by the PMDG NGX, it has a performance manager and is pretty FPS friendly. I ran it for 2 years on an E8400 overclocked to 3.85ghz, 2 GB ram, and Win XP 32 bit and usually maintained at least 20 FPS in demanding situtions and no OOM's.

 

Between the PMDG offerings, the Majestic and Aerosoft, the PMDG and Majestic are more "uber" realistic. Nothing wrong with the Airbus, but it was not designed to be a "study sim" aircraft.

 

The Maddog is very realistic as well, but it's older and not as visually appealing as the other choices, and can be a little harder on performance but it does have a performance manager to help tune it to your system.

 

I prefer the PMDG NGX just because I prefer jets and is a more common plane in the US, but you won't go wrong with either the Majestic or PMDG offerings if you want extreme realism.

[theCessnaguy 0]

Thanks very much guys. I think I will go with the Dash 8 Q400.

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

The Dash 8/Q400 is an Excellent choice!  You'll love here.

 

The Dash uses an external flight dynamics engine that makes it the most realistic FSX aircraft I've ever flown - absolutely reminds me of real work flying!

 

Part of that realistic handling is weight and balance, which is CRITICAL in this model.  As such, I'd like to provide you with the standard weight and balance used by the OVPA Beta Team (we test and evaluate the Professional Version, not yet released). This had made a great deal of difference for many pilots new to the Dash.  I recommend you start with this load out until you're comfortable with it, and then you can change the load out on each flight to add additional realism.  You can of course change the fuel load on each flight.

 

I hope you find this useful!

 

[codechris 9]

Unless someone can correct me, but the Aerosoft doesn't come with FS2Crew, or even a cut down version of it. It comes with a built in check-list feature with voices, but you can't speak to it. It's two voices speaking to each other and doing what is needed

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Chris, that's correct, but separate genuine FS2Crew payware editions ("crew simulations") are available for the AS Airbuses and for the Dash Q400. (Not sure about the Maddog, right now.)

 

The AS Airbuses feature a locked version of the FS2Crew RAAS, though.

[codechris 9]

Oh I love FS2Cew for my NGX. Never fly without it now

[marcus300zx 0]

I love the Airbus, its such an easy plane to fly and I have been using it to learn sids and stars which I can now fly quite happily.

 

Main Reasons I like the airbus are:

 

It lands itself

You don't have to try and find the runway ILS details as the plane knows them and lands you bang on the centre line

you don't have to worry about learning all the systems as the co-pilot sorts all that out.

its nice to look at and framerate friendly

and once you do learn to fly using the sids and stars for approaches it manages everything else itself including speed restrictions and height restrictions.

[~Craig~ 10]

I'd advise against the Leonardo Maddog on two counts;   It is a very old addon (with poor textures compared to today's), and it is a very complex aircraft to operate (as a newcomer to complex airliners).    It certainly has an avid following, but the Majestic Q400 and the Aerosoft Airbuses offer so much more for the money, and are as close to state of the art as you'll get.

 

From the Airbus or the Q400;  well as others have said, the Q400 has fantastic performance and is fairly light on frame rates.   But it can be tough to learn for a complete newcomer to complex airliners.  For example, it's FMC is different to the types you'd find in 737s and Airbuses, and can take some grappling initially.

 

The Airbuses are still good on frames, but not to the degree of the Q400.  You may have to lower your settings more with this one, if your system is a little light on muscle.  But it is indeed a very easy way of entering the complex airliner arena. The systems are pretty intuitive and often self-managed, plus as Marcus said, you get a F/O who will do virtually everything for you (apart from hand fly the aircraft).

[codechris 9]

I love the Airbus, its such an easy plane to fly and I have been using it to learn sids and stars which I can now fly quite happily.

 

Main Reasons I like the airbus are:

 

It lands itself

You don't have to try and find the runway ILS details as the plane knows them and lands you bang on the centre line

you don't have to worry about learning all the systems as the co-pilot sorts all that out.

its nice to look at and framerate friendly

and once you do learn to fly using the sids and stars for approaches it manages everything else itself including speed restrictions and height restrictions.

 

 

The Boeings will also do that, in fact quite a lot of planes do that, however don't take the FMS data as gospal, you need to cross check the SIDS and STAR height and speed with the charts, they are not always correct. So once you've programmed the SID on the ground, cross check with the chart, and vice-versa when you are descending and approaching the STAR.

 

It does and will change, and you can update that using a system such as navigraph, but even with that up to date, never take that asis, always cross-check.

 

I think the systems side is personal choice. I'm glad I had 9 months of flying in the NGX before I got hold of FS2Crew, because I know exactly what's going on and when, and can manually intervene if needed. But that's personal preference

[Jimmy RFR 406]

The Dash 8/Q400 is an Excellent choice!  You'll love here.

 

The Dash uses an external flight dynamics engine that makes it the most realistic FSX aircraft I've ever flown - absolutely reminds me of real work flying!

 

Part of that realistic handling is weight and balance, which is CRITICAL in this model.  As such, I'd like to provide you with the standard weight and balance used by the OVPA Beta Team (we test and evaluate the Professional Version, not yet released). This had made a great deal of difference for many pilots new to the Dash.  I recommend you start with this load out until you're comfortable with it, and then you can change the load out on each flight to add additional realism.  You can of course change the fuel load on each flight.

 

I hope you find this useful!

 

 

Excellent suggestion on the loadout, thanks for that.  I've always set up mine to be something similar, but it's nice to see the number others recommend.

 

Out of the suggested aircraft, I'd go with the Q400 as well.  Some of the lack of automation actually make it a bit friendlier to a newcomer in my mind, as it's smaller size makes it relatively easy to hand fly.  I've done flights with it where I've forgone the FMS altogether, and just treated it like a bit bigger GA aircraft.  A bit more of a stretch to do that with an Airbus!!  The systems are fairly simple, and most things can be learned as you go.  Whereas with some of the bigger, more complex airliners, I feel like I'm sitting down in front of an alien spacecraft. ^_^

 

I've also found the Q400 to be easy to land, but perhaps that's because I also fly navy jets in my sim, where aiming at the deck and landing hard is a purposeful thing. Compared to those, the slower speed of a Q400 makes the landing seem graceful by comparison.

[KingGhidorah 209]

New flyers of the Majestic D-8 should be aware of the "turbulence scalar" paramater in this airplane's configuration file. Because of the unique way this plane reacts with FS or Active Sky weather, people who let this param remain at it's .75 default might find that the plane is unrealistically hard to control in any kind of chop. I settled on .4, a value that makes it bounce around in turbulence about the same as NGX. Once you tune that parameter and also become accustomed to the fact that this plane is primarily about the engines, and not the wings, the plane won't be any harder to handfly than anything else.

[~Craig~ 10]

New flyers of the Majestic D-8 should be aware of the "turbulence scalar" paramater in this airplane's configuration file. Because of the unique way this plane reacts with FS or Active Sky weather, people who let this param remain at it's .75 default might find that the plane is unrealistically hard to control in any kind of chop. I settled on .4, a value that makes it bounce around in turbulence about the same as NGX. Once you tune that parameter and also become accustomed to the fact that this plane is primarily about the engines, and not the wings, the plane won't be any harder to handfly than anything else.

Good point.    I similarly found 0.35 to be the most realistic / manageable setting.